Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1
Probably why they no longer give them a numerical grade is the fact that most of the non-square frame subjects which are the only true blank back T204's are in fact early two-part cards that had the front and back adhered to each other and separated later in life due to moisture or damp environments. These early two-part cards are very scarce.
Most collectors are unaware of the two-part T204's and often buy these "blank back" cards thinking they are a scarce error when in fact they are not. Again, Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen and Moran can and do come with blank backs and were made that way. If one had one of these blank backs and one of the supposed blank backs in hand they will find a difference in stock thickness.
|
Scott, not that clarification is necessary, but would a "thinner" blank back T204 be like a skinned OJ?
That's great information! Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
So I think if SB's point were rigorously applied, they would never give a numerical grade to Zeenuts lacking the coupon, and they do (I have a bunch). They are also "separated" from ~1/4-1/3 of the card.
I spoke to SGC, and they said my points were "well taken."
|
I completely agree with that - any Zeenut with the coupon removed should have AUTH on the label. All you can do is hope the TPGs understand the first couple years of Zeenuts didn't have coupons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey2296
Frustrating experience Brian.
I've always said if another TPG wanted to put SGC out of business all they would have to do is offer a black apron.
|
Now that is funny, and probably so true today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit
Not that big a deal, they're only baseball cards, not worth getting that upset about.
|
Sacrilege!
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog
This one took months to get back from PSA; then I noticed the error and figured I'd call it a day.
 |
OMG - the ultra rare Gogans with the "C" variation!
.